Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

As I mentioned before: Look up Dellbrück and Luria, must have been during the 40s of last century.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I see Giggles is using the "intimation without explanation" method of weaseling - as perfected by "Socrates"/Doug Dobney at TR, but used by IDiots everywhere

he INTIMATES that he knows that known evolutionary mechanism cannot account for this or that new phenotype, but consistently fails to explain what other mechanisms are responsible, let alone give any evidence for the existence of such mechanisms IRL

He's desperately trying NOT to say that he believes that organisms actively and with foresight as to result change their genomes to reach a specific goal, because he knows he has no evidence.

Nevertheless that is what he believes. That's what his "molecular intelligence" bafflegab is all about.

I see Giggles is using the "intimation without explanation" method of weaseling - as perfected by "Socrates"/Doug Dobney at TR, but used by IDiots everywhere

he INTIMATES that he knows that known evolutionary mechanism cannot account for this or that new phenotype, but consistently fails to explain what other mechanisms are responsible, let alone give any evidence for the existence of such mechanisms IRL

He's desperately trying NOT to say that he believes that organisms actively and with foresight as to result change their genomes to reach a specific goal, because he knows he has no evidence.

Nevertheless that is what he believes. That's what his "molecular intelligence" bafflegab is all about.

Of course it's what he believes, but he's too scared to stand up for his own beliefs, hence his continual changes to his 'paper'.

I will admit, he knows a lot of the tricks: arrogance, demanding that people use his terminology his way, strawman and personal attacks instead of evidence, posting from Wikipedia instead of answering questions, etc.

Gary, in your new version, did you address your fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection that I mentioned some 20 pages ago? Did you address the remarkably poor graphing skills that were mentioned at the same time.

Do you have a single reference work to support anything you've said in your 'paper'? I only ask because, when I was in 6th grade, I had to write a paper and my teacher forced me to include references. I've been doing that now for almost 30 years. It's sort of standard. Will you ever include a list of references and works cited? Or is this just another time-cube?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

All you need is the title and maybe abstract of the paper so you can boast about how wonderful the theory you follow is, while I need to know the exact mechanism including any sensory systems that may be involved.

You didn't explain the nylonase case yet.BTW, are you aware that what you write is not really new? Did you never encounter James Shapiro?

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And I have to add that Plant Source Code is back online!! It was offline for days, and I was not the only one worried that it was gone for good. But before panicking I did my best to be patient, by taking the advice of someone who said it's probably just routine maintenance. I'm now in a great mood! Welcome back PSC!!!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And I have to add (plus fix typo) that Planet Source Code is back online!! It was offline for days, and I was not the only one worried that it was gone for good. But before panicking I did my best to be patient, by taking the advice of someone who said it's probably just routine maintenance. I'm now in a great mood! Welcome back PSC!!!

Also, it went offline right after I took the advice to link my signature line image to somewhere else, then put it on one of my download sites. If I didn't do that then it would have suddenly vanished, like I saw happen to someone else who linked directly to their site.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

Quote

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that.

Then your memory isn't very good please re-read his papers because the first time round you weren't present when you supposedly read them.

Quote

It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

Really? Please point out which colonies didn't survive cause Dr Lenski isn't aware he has undead bacteria in his lab and he should be immediately warned of this horrific revelation.

Quote

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment....

Great so you say it was random chance that ara -3 got there before the others?

Also it would be very useful if you could please identify where the repository for generating tandem duplications of CIT+ is physically held in say generation 5,000 of colony ara -3. Please be specific.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

Quote

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that.

Then your memory isn't very good please re-read his papers because the first time round you weren't present when you supposedly read them.

Quote

It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

Really? Please point out which colonies didn't survive cause Dr Lenski isn't aware he has undead bacteria in his lab and he should be immediately warned of this horrific revelation.

Quote

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment....

Great so you say it was random chance that ara -3 got there before the others?

Also it would be very useful if you could please identify where the repository for generating tandem duplications of CIT+ is physically held in say generation 5,000 of colony ara -3. Please be specific.

You are now using academic snobbery to change the subject away from bacteria which are being forced to adapt or perish, in comparison to ones which are given ideal conditions for cloning.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment the clones cannot survive for very long?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Typo, the word "nylonase" should read "nylon" or better yet be removed due to it being redundant:

A viable experiment here would be to clone e.coli in ideal conditions, while comparing to those cloned in conditions where there are antibiotics, teratogens and other near fatal chemicals that at first kills almost all of them off. For good luck clone a batch that only has for a food source a well worn nylon stocking and maybe a sweaty/smelly cotton blend gym sock to help get them started on their new diet.

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

This has been already done and resaults have been published. Read about Richard Lenski's work with LTEE.

Once you have read his papers (presuming you can read them) please come back and tell us why some of the e.colli evolved Cit+ mutation and why others didn't? Were they dumber?

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that. It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment. Which one is the first to take a good guess that works is not necessarily an indication that the others are dumber, they were simply the first to find a successful solution to a problem. It's possible that another soon finds an even better solution.

Quote

I recall Richard Lenski's bacterial evolution experiment. In fact I had it on my mind when I was writing that.

Then your memory isn't very good please re-read his papers because the first time round you weren't present when you supposedly read them.

Quote

It's evidence that what I said is true. If you take away the adverse conditions they are being forced to adapt to then cloning is easy, otherwise it's impossible because the clones will not survive for long in that environment.

Really? Please point out which colonies didn't survive cause Dr Lenski isn't aware he has undead bacteria in his lab and he should be immediately warned of this horrific revelation.

Quote

To the question of which is dumber, the comparison is between identical clones with the exact same molecular intelligence (genome) in the exact same learning environment....

Great so you say it was random chance that ara -3 got there before the others?

Also it would be very useful if you could please identify where the repository for generating tandem duplications of CIT+ is physically held in say generation 5,000 of colony ara -3. Please be specific.

You are now using academic snobbery to change the subject away from bacteria which are being forced to adapt or perish, in comparison to ones which are given ideal conditions for cloning.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment the clones cannot survive for very long?

You do understand that citrate was used in the experiment as a stabilzer for the media because E. coli can't metabolize it right?

You do understand that the bacterial populations had plenty of normal food during these experiments right?

You do understand that Lenski was NOT trying to grow an E. coli population that could metabolize citrate right?

No, I guess not.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

You do understand that citrate was used in the experiment as a stabilzer for the media because E. coli can't metabolize it right?

You do understand that the bacterial populations had plenty of normal food during these experiments right?

You do understand that Lenski was NOT trying to grow an E. coli population that could metabolize citrate right?

No, I guess not.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment in which the clones cannot survive for very long?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, it is actually you who should ask questions. And it doesn't help if you change from phages to nylonase and the to Lenski's experiment. You just can not demonstrate the intelligence you believe is driving adaptions in any of these systems. You only demonstrate that you don't know nothing about biology.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Gary, it is actually you who should ask questions. And it doesn't help if you change from phages to nylonase and the to Lenski's experiment. You just can not demonstrate the intelligence you believe is driving adaptions in any of these systems. You only demonstrate that you don't know nothing about biology.

Or in other words you would rather make it appear that I was the one who changed the subject to Lenski's experiment, than discuss a relevant experiment I proposed for testing the theory.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you want to know how bacteria react in a hostile environment you should read Dellbrück and Luria. Obviously you are not aware of one of the basic experiments from which molecular biology developed. The irony is that Dellbrück actually started his biological research because he was hoping to find some principle that would be special for life. However, his research lead him to conclude that the basis of life and molecular genetics is just phycics and chemistry. The difference between Dellbrück and you is that he was willing and able to test his ideas and he was willing to admitt it when it turned out that they were wrong.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Actually, I've asked you about how according to your "theory" individuals of a bacterial clone react in a hostile environment before and your reply was the same bull shit that you keep piling up since then.

edited for spelling

Edited by sparc on Nov. 27 2012,15:56

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Why then do you use the active voice, as in "Bacteria can (self-)modify their genes."? If it's not a choice, why introduce "intelligence"?

It is a known fact that bacterial genomes change over time. And unless you have a Flying Natural Selection Monster shuffling their nucleotides around with its noodley appendages then it is something that the bacterial genomes (its molecular intelligence) hence the bacteria are themselves capable of.

Wait, what? Now a bacterial genome is its "molecular intelligence"?

See, it's phrasing like this that makes me think you believe bacteria have the will or intent to modify their genomes. It's as if I said "Volcanoes have the ability to modify their internal pressure by erupting."

And when you say "bacterial genomes change over time", are you referring to an individual organism or a reproducing colony? If the former, do you mean HGT, or are you saying an individual can modify its own genome? Okay, maybe I could accept that, in a single-celled organism, but again, you have not shown that this modification is designed to increase survival advantage in an individual rather than just a complex chemical reaction.

Maybe you can give an example, as in "when exposed to X for the first time ever, this individual bacterium produced Y for the first time ever, by modifying its genome thus, which increased its survival advantage".

I suspect that what you are calling "guesses" are what the rest of the world calls "variation". And you are still not clear about whether, in each instance, you are referring to an individual organism's genome or the colony's gene pool.

What about higher life forms? Where does the ability of an organism to "modify its own genome" end? Are you saying we have the ability to change our gametes in response to the environment?

Quote

And I introduced "intelligence" because it is there.

Where, exactly? How are you defining "intelligence" if not "the ability to make decisions"? It looks to me like all you have is stimulus/response, and I don't believe you have shown that the response is -- what, geared? calculated? designed? -- to increase survival advantage. Maybe you can give me an example that cannot be explained by the current paradigm.

Quote

That is why animals as complex as humans now exist. If there is no genetic ability to "self-learn" then humans could not exist.[/i]

So... bacteria don't make the choice to modify their genomes, but they have "the genetic ability to self-learn"? I'm having a hard time understanding what that means, exactly. Do you mean they respond to external stimuli? Well of course they do. See above re stimulus/response.

Quote

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 27 2012,00:21)

Nature is sloppy (which is, I think, what really sticks your craw).

What really sticks my craw are condescending noodle-heads who think they know-it-all. The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations that make me wonder if I'm talking to children.

(shrug) I never claimed to know it all, I'm just asking questions.

Why would I use "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" when I have no idea what you mean by these terms, and have a hard time believing they exist? It's just sounds like stuff you made up, like some physics... maverick, let's say... talking about "the speed of time".

I don't use the term "holy spirit" when I'm talking to religious fanatics, either. It's vacuous nonsense.

To which "grade school generalizations" are you referring? Are you saying that imperfect replication is not a factor in genetic variation? That nature is not sloppy, that all genetic variation is guided? How would you show this? And you have not answered my question about "bad" mutations.

Yes, I suspect you're out to lunch, but I want to be sure I understand your position more completely before I give up.

Like James Caan observing Matthew in "NewsRadio".

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

You do understand that citrate was used in the experiment as a stabilzer for the media because E. coli can't metabolize it right?

You do understand that the bacterial populations had plenty of normal food during these experiments right?

You do understand that Lenski was NOT trying to grow an E. coli population that could metabolize citrate right?

No, I guess not.

It would help to answer this with a yes/no answer: Are you arguing that cloning is equally easy in an environment in which the clones cannot survive for very long?

If the reproduction time for the clones is less than the average time to death, then yes.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about.

In Lenski's experiments, the bacteria are not in a hostile environment. In the case of the nylonase bacteria, they were not in a hostile environment.

In both cases, a mutation (or series thereof) allowed bacteria to exploit a niche that was previously unavailable. This led to rapid growth of the population because there are no competitors.

Now, do you understand that this is the case and your question is meaningless in the actual discussion that is taking place?

Stop moving the goalposts!!

I have not been talking about giving all of the clone groups plenty of normal food. Only the control group would have ideal conditions for the cell line to remain unchanged. All other groups are stressed out, forced to learn a new trick (adapt) to new food sources and environmental conditions or they soon perish. Cognitive theory more or less predicts the old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention" will hold true in regard to the molecular intelligence (genome) part of the cell.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange". You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen".

The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence".

Anyway, I'm off to my day job!

Bet you can't quote a peer-reviewed research paper as saying that "conjugation" = "learning" or that "intelligence" = "chemical reactions".

That's because of the Marxist-Nazi-Popperist punishment squads patrolling the halls of academe, Ogre. Haven't you been paying attention?

So, he's on to us. Crap.

This could Gary guy could bring us all down. He seems to know the truth and has the determination to bring us to our knees, unlike the hundreds of other people who also thought they knew the truth before Gary appeared.

So far, in the last 150 years, we have successfully rebuffed every attempt by those that actually knew the truth. It was an amazing display of coordinated effort from tens of thousands of low paid scientists, hundreds of politicians, thousands of businesses ranging from agricultural equipment manufacture to Big Pharma. Despite all the differences, infighting, funding battles, and other internal squabbles, we have held firm on this one goal.

But now that Gary knows the truth, we are doomed. DOOMED, I tell you {slaps table for emphasis!}. All that work to filter out the 3 or so pro-ID papers that have been submitted is wasted. All that money we successfully prevented pro-ID scientists from applying for. (How's that continuing project going Agent Guacamole?) All those popular books that we forced them to publish in, instead of peer-reviewed journals that we control via the dozens of publishers in dozens of countries (in spite of the fact that a single scoop would elevate the scooper to never before seen heights of fame and recognition).

No, we are beaten. Beaten by one guy on a forum that must have tens of daily readers. How can we possibly recover from this disaster?

Ladies and gentlemen, as a member of this group that nefariously uses reason, evidence, and other scientific principles to support our grand plan of suppressing the truth of the myth of ID, I can only say one thing... it's over.

We tried. We did our best. Somehow, we've been found out. Gary must be the smartest, most dedicated investigator on the planet. His mountains of evidence of our global, multi-generational conspiracy has undermined all of our efforts. Every single product developed by evolutionary principles will now, no longer work. Instead, as the truth is revealed to the world, ID principles will take over the function of those systems.

Bacteria! DAMN YOU BACTERIA!! We've been keeping them as little more than sacks of cytoplasm for years. Now, the truth comes out and they will become intelligent, dooming the world of eukaryotes by sheer numbers. Do you see what you've done Gary? Do you understand why we had to keep this conspiracy under wraps?

The bacteria HATE us. Now, with your revelations, they become intelligent and we will be powerless against their ability to rewrite their genetic code into anything they want. The superbugs of evolution will become super-powered bugs. Our hidden ID research facility suggest that in less than five years, the bacteria will have developed the ability to shoot megajoule high frequency lasers and grow adamantium claws from their flagella. They will use our own weapons against us.

There is only one option left. They last step to prevent the revelations of the truth and prevent bacteriagghedon.

We'll have to activate plan Omega.

Good-bye my friends. It has been a pleasure being a member of this grand conspiracy all these years.

Forgive my tardiness (ahahahaha, see what I did there?).

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and MicroscalesEviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and MicroscalesEviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

fnxtr: If you disagree, if you think variation is somehow guided, or a strategic reaction to increase survival advantage in a changed environment, how do you think variation happens? Be specific. How would we test this notion?

I'd suggest looking for statistical patterns of what fraction of mutations are advantageous, what fraction are detrimental, and what fraction are who gives a hoot. Actually, I think I more or less did suggest that in different words (unless that thought was on that other thread?), but the point wasn't addressed.

Quote

I suspect that what you are calling "guesses" are what the rest of the world calls "variation". And you are still not clear about whether, in each instance, you are referring to an individual organism's genome or the colony's gene pool.

I posted the Intelligent Causation illustration to show what I am saying about it being systematically "the same way your brain learns".

And I posted what I said because there are significant differences between how a species evolves and how a neural network acquires knowledge. Comparing them may be interesting, but it is a very loose analogy.

Quote

It also sounds like you are saying that somatic hypermutation is a totally random event with a normal mutation rate like any other cell.

I didn't say anything about immune system cells. As I understand that, what they do is manage to speed up mutation in some regions of their DNA while (I presume) minimizing it elsewhere; in essence a genetic algorithm. The mutation in those are indeed random, just with a higher frequency in some areas that affect tendency of the cell to detect and attach to trespassers.

Quote

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

I presume that's assuming that the method of cloning somehow prevents mutations during the cell divisions.That strikes me as unlikely.

Quote

The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations

Those two phrases are not appropriate for discussions of chemistry and cellular biology. The word "intelligence" doesn't add anything to the understanding of those subjects. If somebody developing computer software or hardware used molecules as components, that could make the phrase relevant in that field, but not to biology.

In evolution, mutations, recombinations, and a few other things increase the amount of variety in the species. In a large population, alleles that are widespread would get most of the possible point mutations tested periodically; that's just statistics, not intelligence. Selection and genetic drift generally reduce the amount of variety; when things are stable a balance is reached between the things that increase variety and the things that decrease it. When things aren't stable, these processes can produce a positive feedback effect that might or might not optimize some feature of the organisms in that species.

Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and MicroscalesEviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

No, I did not cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work. This paper discusses what I was talking about, while you and others tried to make it seem like it was impossible for me to be making perfect sense.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I posted the Intelligent Causation illustration to show what I am saying about it being systematically "the same way your brain learns".

And I posted what I said because there are significant differences between how a species evolves and how a neural network acquires knowledge. Comparing them may be interesting, but it is a very loose analogy.

The only difference is that the system is made of neurons. There is also multiplexing that the usual neural network models do not cover, for example grid, place and head direction cells (likely part of RAM Addressing circuitry but none are yet sure exactly how it works). Here's one of my science projects to help myself and others better understand the process:

It also sounds like you are saying that somatic hypermutation is a totally random event with a normal mutation rate like any other cell.

I didn't say anything about immune system cells. As I understand that, what they do is manage to speed up mutation in some regions of their DNA while (I presume) minimizing it elsewhere; in essence a genetic algorithm. The mutation in those are indeed random, just with a higher frequency in some areas that affect tendency of the cell to detect and attach to trespassers.

Hypermutation is not accounted for in a typical GA, it works like the computer model in the theory. In molecular intelligence what you are seeing is it taking "good guesses". Only one data region of the DNA RAM changes in response to previous memory actions not working, not entire genome, as is required/predicted by the model in theory.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)

Quote

Anyway, if mutations are indeed like some suggest random and without reason then perfect clones should be produced for an equal number of generations, in any condition.

I presume that's assuming that the method of cloning somehow prevents mutations during the cell divisions.That strikes me as unlikely.

No, see my previous reply with a paper on how that one works.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)

Quote

The least you can do is use the proper phrasing "molecular intelligence" or "cellular intelligence" instead of the usual grade school generalizations

Those two phrases are not appropriate for discussions of chemistry and cellular biology. The word "intelligence" doesn't add anything to the understanding of those subjects. If somebody developing computer software or hardware used molecules as components, that could make the phrase relevant in that field, but not to biology.

In case you did not see it yet this is an excellent resource for Cellular Intelligence:

Molecular Intelligence is still an emerging concept, which seriously needs this theory to properly operationally define and explain how it works.

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2012,21:38)

In evolution, mutations, recombinations, and a few other things increase the amount of variety in the species. In a large population, alleles that are widespread would get most of the possible point mutations tested periodically; that's just statistics, not intelligence. Selection and genetic drift generally reduce the amount of variety; when things are stable a balance is reached between the things that increase variety and the things that decrease it. When things aren't stable, these processes can produce a positive feedback effect that might or might not optimize some feature of the organisms in that species.

Henry

You are trying to describe what I am talking about using the generalizations of a paradigm which missses what is most important to understand about the underlying process. Its systematically works the exact same way as any other self-learning system at other intelligence levels.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolution Under Environmental Stress at Macro- and MicroscalesEviatar Nevo*

Abstract

Environmental stress has played a major role in the evolution of living organisms (Hoffman AA, Parsons PA. 1991. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Parsons PA. 2005. Environments and evolution: interactions between stress, resource inadequacy, and energetic efficiency. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 80:589–610). This is reflected by the massive and background extinctions in evolutionary time (Nevo E. 1995a. Evolution and extinction. Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1:717–745). The interaction between organism and environment is central in evolution. Extinction ensues when organisms fail to change and adapt to the constantly altering abiotic and biotic stressful environmental changes as documented in the fossil record. Extreme environmental stress causes extinction but also leads to evolutionary change and the origination of new species adapted to new environments. I will discuss a few of these global, regional, and local stresses based primarily on my own research programs. These examples will include the 1) global regional and local experiment of subterranean mammals; 2) regional experiment of fungal life in the Dead Sea; 3) evolution of wild cereals; 4) “Evolution Canyon”; 5) human brain evolution, and 6) global warming.

No, I did not cite this paper to refer to Dr. Lenski's work. This paper discusses what I was talking about, while you and others tried to make it seem like it was impossible for me to be making perfect sense.

Gary Tard, the paper you have sited does nothing to advance your position.

You have constantly failed to show intelligence in any of these papers: Lenski, Eviatar Nevo, or Luria–Delbrück. Actually you have failed to show intelligence in general.

You have refused to show where the "hardware" for making intelligent decisions is located in any cell.

You have ignored continual corrections that "molecular intelligence" is not what you think it is.

You have not read any of Lenski's work, that is clear by the stupid objections that you have made.

Please read the stuff then come back and we can talk about it.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

If you have questions, when I will answer them for you, when I get home. Be good!

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.